On June 14, 2017 at 14:22 goe...@sasami.anime.net (Dan Hollis) wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, b...@theworld.com wrote: > > Merely deciding not to patronize them may not be sufficient and that's > > why we make that sort of thing just outright illegal rather than hope > > market forces will suffice. > > Most spam is sent from compromised machines anyway, so there are already > criminal violations involved in sending spam.
FWIW I believe the context was a vendor spamming NANOG attendees (see the Subject:) so not likely being done from compromised machines. That said, yes, a lot of spam is sent from compromised machines as you say. But criminal violations can be additive, even rising to things like RICO charges (a pattern of organized criminal behavior etc.) which can be both criminal and civil and added onto charges like the criminality of specific mechanisms (compromised systems etc.) It really depends on how interested one can get the legal machinery in the problem. Thus far that's hit or miss. I can't find any instance where RICO charges were used against a spam gang tho, at least on a quick search. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*